Apparently nobody has ever said to you, "No, it's not a compiler, it's a transpiler," which makes you a luckier person than I am. People know less than you think.
I don't even understand why someone would say that. What's the point in asserting that something isn't a compiler? Not that I doubt that this really happens, but I don't know what saying something "isn't a compiler" is meant to prove. Is it meant to downplay the complexity of a transpiler?
Obviously I believe transpilers are compilers. A cursory Google search shows that the word transpiler is equated to "source-to-source compiler" right away. If it truly wasn't a compiler, didn't have a true frontend and really did a trivial syntax-to-syntax translation, surely it would only be a translator, right? That is my assumption.
But all that put aside for a moment, I do stand by one thing; that's still not really an issue I blame on the existence of the word transpiler. If anything, it feels like it is in spite of the word transpiler, which itself heavily hints at the truth...
